The minutes do not necessarily record discussion in the order in which it occurred. Material has been rearranged to increase comprehension and to collocate items related to specific topics for clarity.

In MARBI minutes, a "vote of the Committee" indicates a poll of those MARBI Committee members appointed by one of the three sponsoring divisions, rather than persons of a particular constituency who are members of the MARC Advisory Committee or other participants. These votes are a formal representation of Committee views. The Chair rarely votes except to break a tie. The term "straw vote" indicates a poll of anyone in attendance. Such votes are advisory and are not binding upon the Committee. Where no vote totals are recorded, but a MARBI position is stated, the position has been determined by consensus.

Chair Bruce Johnson opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. The Chair also provided updates on committee membership: Robin Wendler
has resigned her seat; Christina Meyer has taken her place; Michael Fox is now a voting member of ALCTS as well as being the SAA rep; Barbara Weir has taken his position as ALCTS intern.

The chair asked members to check their listing on the roster and make changes; audience members should sign attendance sheets.

Bruce Johnson announced that the order of the agenda items would be modified to allow discussion of some items on Saturday rather than Sunday. The proposed agenda was adopted by voice vote.

The minutes of the annual meeting in New Orleans were adopted without change by voice vote. The chair had no report.

Update on Seriality Issues

Jean Hirons (LC) reported on ongoing efforts to modify AACR2
to reflect a revised view of seriality in Part I of the descriptive cataloging code. Since MARBI's discussion of seriality at ALA Annual in New Orleans, the Joint Steering Committee had met in October and came to some conclusions about the general direction of this exploration.

The JSC plans on expanding AACR2 Chapter 12 by the end of 2000 to cover continuing resources (called "integrating resources"). A fully-developed rule revision packet should be ready for consideration by CC:DA at ALA Annual in Chicago. Three areas that will affect MARC 21 are:

Bibliographic level: JSC approved the ISBD(S) model of continuing resources. All of the rules covering integrating resources (regardless of material type) will be in Chapter 12.
The JSC also will be considering a total reorganization of Part I of the code by ISBD bibliographic areas of description. This, however, will take some time to accomplish and no final decisions on this subject have been made.

Publishing statement: JSC did not approve description from the latest issue, but there was interest in this from the ISBD(S) user community. JSC feels that this can be addressed by
coding and display.

Under the new model, latest issue information will be recorded in a 500 'description based on:' note. There is a lot of interest in getting access to the latest title information and there are few additional 24X fields available. Jean Hirons confirmed that the intent is to further develop all three of the options.

Sherman Clarke asked whether Chapter 12 would come out as a chapter or a pamphlet as Chapter 9 did? Jean Hirons replied that the problem is they are not just updating chapter 12; many other chapters are affected. John Attig mentioned that there is also a major revision in the
works for Chapter 9.

A discussion paper will be prepared for the summer meeting to further develop Leader/07 options and consider making field 260 repeatable.

Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal which recommends adoption of a new subfield in fields 853-855 of the holdings format. This came out of the Conser Publication Pattern Task Force which is working on a project to communicate publication pattern information in coded form. The numbering scheme cannot be fully encoded in the holdings format, and this affects libraries' ability to predict when issues should appear.

Option 1 provides five values (Arabic numeral, lower case alphabetic, upper case alphabetic, lower case Roman numeral, upper case Roman numeral). Option 2 is more complex and uses 2- or 3-character codes. The first position describes whether the number is alpha or numeral. If the designation is alpha, positions 2 and 3 would use an ISO standard code for the script. If the designation is numeric, then the second position would be coded for Arabic or Roman.

Diane Hillman preferred Option 2 but had suggestions for types of enumeration, many of which are common in legal publications, which should be considered: numeric with alpha extensions, ordinals, and stars used as enumeration. She also raised the question of how to do this when there are no captions.

Joe Altimus commented that RLG favors Option 2 because it is more extensible. It may be better to have a separate code for no case rather to combine lower case and no case as code c in the first position. Also, should numbers 0-9 be treated as a special case; they wouldn't necessarily have an indication of script. There is also the question of other types of numerals, such as Hindi numerals, Tibetan and Urdu scripts. RLG believes it is premature to adopt this.

The Chair asked whether there would be a problem in 'regularizing' these numerals? Marti Scheel reported that NLM standardizes everything in Arabic numerals.

In a comment from the audience, Ellen Rappaport pointed out that Z39.71 says to convert all numeric information to Arabic numerals; she believes the MARC format should support the NISO standard. Rebecca Guenther replied that this code is intended simply to provide information about receipt patterns. Sally McCallum added it might be useful to consider Arabic numerals as the default. Joe Altimus countered that it would be a waste to code scripts when a
majority of publications are in Arabic numerals.

Question 4.1: The values in the publication pattern subfields may be used for collapse functions as well as prediction. Will the definition of this subfield have any impact on a system's ability to manipulate data?

The Chair noted that RLG had responded "unknown" to this question. Voyager has just recently provided a collapse function, but it is a work in progress. An audience member commented that other systems have used this, but the incorporation of alphabetic characters has limited prediction functionality. Diane Hillman noted that there is some potential in coding data, for example displaying Roman numerals as they are but translating them into Arabic for manipulation.

Question 4.2: If Option 2 is selected, will it be necessary to indicate script used for numeric schemes (e.g., numbers written in another script)? The assumption here is that only a type code would be needed for numerals. Since Arabic numerals are not really written in the Arabic script, this could be a problem.

Paul Weiss (III) thinks this would be an issue for some III customers. A discussion on Hebrew letters used as numbers followed. David Goldberg (NAL) noted that context distinguishes them. The advantage is that they can be written in the same direction as the Hebrew words. Joan Aliprand (RLG) discussed Hindi numbers; in Unicode they are coded separately with distinctive numbers. The directionality comes in display; directionality is flagged at the field level and depends on surrounding data.

John Attig summarized there were things discussed that are not currently in the proposal, such as the case of a numbering unit containing upper and lower case, alpha-numeric, symbolic, and ordinal characters; some things need to be developed before this can be resolved. Marti Scheel suggested that the coding be a fixed length.

The Chair noted that the sense of the meeting was positively inclined towards Option 2, but that there are still many data conditions that need to be accounted for before MARBI would be prepared to give its final approval. Any additional comments should be directed to Rebecca Guenther or Sally McCallum. This proposal will be brought back to MARBI for its ALA Annual meetings in Chicago.

Proposal 2000-03: Definition of Subfield $2 (Source of term) in Field 583 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Format

Rebecca Guenther introduced this proposal for the ALCTS Preservation and Reformatting Section, Intellectual Access Committee. They have asked for subfield $2 in the 583 field (Actions Note) to indicate the source of a term if it is a controlled term. They will be working on a standard terminology document. Subfield $2 would not be mandatory if using a non-standard term. Debra McKern (LC) reported that the committee believes there are four communities (archives, rare book, collection development, and preservation) that might want to use this subfield and so potentially four thesauri. John Attig commented that if you need to distinguish between retention and preservation, that could be done with a separate code in the $2 rather than with an indicator; there is precedence for this. Marti Scheel reported that NLM is in favor of this proposal, especially for retention of electronic resources. NLM would probably define their own codes. Michael Fox says the archive community also favors the use of a subfield rather than employing an indicator. There are so many possible other uses of the indicator that it would be like that indicator values would be easily exhausted.

Discussion followed concerning whether different sources could be used in different subfields. The conclusion was that one would use multiple 583 fields. The issue of whether there was a place to indicate 'local' as a source and whether there would there be a place for the library to identify itself. Marti Scheel responded that NLM would identify themselves in some way. John Attig added that the local institution could be identified in subfield $5.

Diane Hillman moved and Michael Fox seconded approval of the proposal. Rebecca Guenther wondered if the comment about indicating whether something was for retention or preservation should be left out. John Attig clarified that those kind of distinctions would be done with a code rather than an indicator. The motion was approved with no objection. Subfield $2 is non-repeatable; if different sources are recorded, separate fields are used.

Rebecca Guenther introduced the discussion paper which explores the possibility of integrating the community information format into the MARC 21 bibliographic format. Rebecca noted that there is considerable overlap between the two formats. In some cases such as address and hours, community information fields have been defined in the bibliographic format. The distinction between the two formats is not always clear to some catalog users. Some electronic resources could be described as community information or as bibliographic information.

The overlap is also coming up in mapping some Dublin Core data elements to MARC 21. There
has been little response to this discussion paper from the community information community. Louise Sevold (PLA CIS) spoke from a user's standpoint. She was encouraged to hear that it would not be necessary to add 245 fields to CI records. Her library's community information database contains 3000 records; 98% do not contain 245 fields. The records generally contain information about agencies, with the agency name being in the 100 field. Some records have URLs for the agency's web site. They do not have a problem with integrating community information into the bibliographic database so long as these records can be identified and isolated. Diane Hillman said this functions more like an authority file rather than a bibliographic file.

Discussion followed regarding the use of community information data in the DRA system. These records function more like authority than like bibliographic records, but library patrons use them like bibliographic records. Sue Moore (MAGERT) reported that Tioga County Library has created a community calendar which is bibliographically based and they prefer a single format. While this would be desirable for public libraries, community information records should be clearly labeled. Michael Fox commented that the RLG database has many 'agency history' records which patrons don't understand.

Marti Scheel remarked that the community information records would have to be manipulated before they could be entered into a local catalog, because systems would reject them as is. Libraries could, for example, change data in 110 fields into 690 fields prior to loading; systems would need to address these kinds of conversion issues.

John Attig asked how one would resolve the problem of no 245 field in the CI record. Would system structural edits be relaxed to no longer require 245 fields, or would CI records from here on out require 245 fields? OCLC, CDS, and most other systems will not load bibliographic records that lack 245 fields.

It was felt that it was a system decision whether to integrate community information records with bibliographic records in a database. How the record is coded doesn't have to determine where it will reside. Because of the difficulties with the varying 008s and the required 245 in bibliographic records, integrating the two formats would be a major impact.

A straw vote was taken to assess the level of interest in pursuing a consolidation of the bib and CI formats. Thirteen were in favor of pursuing this; 30 favored dropping the effort.

Because it is often impossible to attribute a work of art to a known artist, art historians routinely use qualifiers such as pupil of, follower of, or school of to convey a relationship between an unknown artist and a known artist or group. Discussion Paper 115 (1999) had suggested using subfield $c, but MARBI objected to that because of its long-established use for titles such as
sir, dr., etc. Field 720 (Uncontrolled names) was also rejected because it isn't indexed the same way that 1XX and 7XX fields are.

ARLIS/NA is in favor of defining a new subfield $j in the bibliographic format to carry this information and recommends that it be defined for the authority, classification, and community information formats as well. Sherman Clarke noted that the Visual Resources Association agree's with ARLIS/NA's position.

Paul Weiss asked how the use of subfield $g or $j relates to the rules. Would these be coded AACR2? There was general agreement that one can not assume that libraries are using
AACR2 or that catalogers will be creating authority records. Daniel Starr (Museum of Modern Art) asked if subfield $g is used, would it be redefined to not include miscellaneous, or would it include miscellaneous as well as anonymous attribution? Rebecca Guenther thought it would probably say that it includes miscellaneous information, and then examples would be given.

Music libraries are unlikely to use this subfield according to Kathy Glennan (MLA). Music scholars have a number of clues to enable them to identify the composer of a piece, and music catalogers have dropped the supposed composer heading.

John Attig pointed out that subfield $g is in the title portion, not the name portion, of the heading, and questioned if this mattered or if it could be moved. Sally McCallum responded that the placement of subfield $g in the title portion was an arbitrary decision since there was no content to use as guidance.

Rebecca Guenther asked for discussion on the order of the information on the display. Annemarie Erickson felt that from a user standpoint the order should be names of artists first, then the qualified artists in alphabetical order. This information is a part of the heading and not treated like "editor" or "joint author." Karen Coyle (California Digital Library) commented that if the heading is displayed, users will want to search using the heading and retrieve results. Therefore, if you are displaying the heading you are committing yourself to indexing it.

ARLIS plans on providing a standardized list of terms that could be used in the subfield. David Goldberg asked if there is or should be a standard for the type of name. Not using these could have an impact on authority control in that you could have different kinds of terms for the same person or even for the same work. The format should clarify the qualifiers to be used and state that they follow the name of a known artist.

Michael Fox moved and Elaine Henjum seconded that Option 2 be approved. During further discussion, David Goldberg asked if this would be extended to X10 fields. Bruce Johnson replied that the X10 fields were not under discussion. The motion carried 8-0 with the chair not voting.

MARBI Business meeting

Lennie Stovel (RLG) reported on the work of the Z39.50 Implementers Group which approved a new architecture for attribute sets. These define the characteristics of the search term such as: how is it used?; is it interpreted as a word or phrase?; is it truncated? The outcome of the group's work was to develop a utility set of attributes that could be used by any community. In addition, a cross-domain attribute set was created which could be used in any kind of searching (bibliographic, scientific, etc.), and is closely related the Dublin Core. With version 3 of Z39.50, searches can use attributes from more than one set, cutting down on the need to redefine attributes across sets. The determination of the attribute sets should be defined by members of the relevant user communities. The work of defining bibliographic attribute sets is sponsored by TC46 SC4 WG4. The document's URL has been posted on the MARC discussion list. Lennie Stovel asked the bibliographic community to review the document and provide feedback.

Sally McCallum presented the Library of Congress report. The MARC 21 Authorities format is at the Government Printing Office and is expected back in early February. Classification, Holdings, and Community Information formats have all been reformatted and are ready to send to CDS. The MARC 21 Specifications document was put up on the web in July. A print version will be available soon. Rebecca Guenther reported that a new edition of the Language codes is being worked on and will include the changes announced six months ago which will comply with the ISO 3-character language codes. The implementation date for these has not been set, but should be within six months. The language codes will be updated on the web page when the document has been published.

The Library of Congress brought up the Endeavor system in August and has just recently closed down the old system. The authority file is not yet accessible in the new system, but it should be available by the end of the year. However, the file is available through the utilities.

LC has ceased using first indicator 2 in the 100 field for multiple surnames in authority records. This is only being changed in bibliographic records if they are being changed for some other reason.

In January 2001 there will be changes to the LCCN structure; the notice is available on the web site.

Rebecca Guenther noted that CDS is going to conduct a test this summer of web distribution and searching of the Library of Congress Classification schedules.

Initial discussion centered around what type of information should be entered into this subfield and the subfield's use as a link as opposed to an identifier. Joe Altimus (RLG) expressed concern about the examples given which show only URLs and no other text in the field, noting that the user may not be receiving enough information. Rich Greene (OCLC) agreed and asked what should be done with 505s containing URLs.

Rich Greene noted that the Linking Entry fields are similar in that they are not just a pointer, but a data identifier. Diane Hillmann pointed out a difference in technical capability as some links in a numeric field are just text links and don't work the same way that URLs do. David Goldberg (NAL) noted that Linking Entry fields have an indicator which generates a label and asked whether the same could be done in this case.

John Attig (OLAC) asked whether a label or other explanation for URLs were assumed to be part of the fields in question. Rebecca Guenther replied that some of the fields [514, 552] have no text subfield and that 773 was the only one for which a subfield ($i) is available.

The fields were discussed one-by-one with final committee vote on the proposal deferred to the end.

Field 505 (Formatted Contents Note)

Kathy Glennan (MLA) remarked that there is a retrieval issue if this field contains just a URL. Rebecca Guenther replied that this is not intended to be an alternative to presenting the data according to established rules. Chair Bruce Johnson noted the need for clarification of this in the documentation and examples. Karen Coyle (California Digital Library) asked if the URL would point to a table of contents or the text of those contents. Diane Hillmann replied that it should point to the table of contents. A straw vote was taken with 33 in favor and 9 against.

Field 514 (Data Quality Note)

Betsy Boyer pointed out that this field would be useful for geospatial data as some instances exceed the OCLC field limit. The field is used to point to metadata online. A straw vote was taken with 30 in favor and 2 against. It was noted that a subfield is needed for a textual note.

520 (Summary, Etc.)

Diane Hillmann (LITA) expressed uneasiness with adding a URL subfield to this field since the field is seen in some quarters as a general catch-all field used for many things. It also includes only one text label indicator. Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested it could be used to slim down AMC records with links to finding aids. Diane Hillmann noted that the 520 field allows for retrieval via keyword. Michael Fox (ALCTS) reminded the group that the link would not be used in place of Scope and Contents notes. A straw vote was taken with 33 in favor and 8 against.

530 (Additional Physical Form Available Note)

Michael Fox (SAA) indicated that with the advent of digital representations there was strong interest in the archival community in this addition. Karen Coyle (California Digital Library) noted that while this is useful, it could replace many 856 fields, especially in cases that use the single record approach. Diane Hillmann was concerned that indexing is being used as a substitute for cataloging. John Attig noted the absence of a caption indicator in this field, although $a can be used for a general note. A straw vote was taken with 38 in favor and 8 against.

545 (Biographical or Historical Data)

Joe Altimus (RLG) was concerned about URLs in shared records. Chair Bruce Johnson asked for clarification about whether this subfield would be added only to the bibliographic format and not to the authority format. Rebecca responded that the two formats would be kept in sync, so that it would be inserted in both formats. Margaret Stewart (NLC) noted that Canadian libraries would benefit from avoidance of long notes in both formats. A straw vote was taken with 39 in favor and 4 against.

552 (Entity and Attribute Information Note)

It was noted that no indicators or textual subfield were defined for this field so something would be needed to display with the URL. A straw vote was taken with 31 in favor and 1 against.

773 (Host Item Entry)

Diane Hillmann noted that the information here is already provided for (field 856) and that addition here is not necessary for access. Discussion showed little support for adding the subfield to this field and questions were raised about the value of a URI subfield in this field. A straw vote was taken with 6 in favor and 30 against.

The Chair asked for a motion based on the above discussion, that addition of subfield $u be approved for all fields except 773, and that LC identify places to insert caption information for fields 514 and 552. Diane Hillman so moved and Annamarie Erickson seconded. The motion passed 8-0 with the chair not voting.

Proposal No. 2000-02: Renaming of Subfield $u to Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) in Field 856 in the MARC 21 Formats

Rebecca Guenther introduced this proposal which recommends making the 856 subfield $g (Uniform Resource Name) obsolete in favor of recording both URLs and URNs in subfield $u, and changing the name of subfield $u to "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)." This proposal arose from the approval of Proposal 99-8, which defined subfield $u elsewhere in the formats as Uniform Resource Identifier and containing both URLs and URNs for fields 555 and 583. It was noted that the W3 Consortium considers the distinction between URNs and URLs as insignificant.

There was limited discussion. In reply to an inquiry by Marti Scheel (NLM), it was noted that the coding for indicator 1 should be as for a URL. Diane Hillmann advised that it should be stipulated that the subfield not repeat if there is more than a single URL. The format should state that a subfield $x should be used if a PURL is recorded in $u.

Diane Hillmann moved to accept the proposal with Michael Fox seconding. The motion carried, 8-0 with the chair not voting.

Proposal No. 2000-05: Uncontrolled Names as Subjects in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Community Information Formats

Rebecca Guenther introduced this proposal for adding a second indicator to the field 653 (Index Term-Uncontrolled) to identify data in the field as a personal name. The field would contain a name as a subject that is not controlled in an authority file or list and/or has not been formulated according to cataloging rules. The proposal also included an alternative: to define a new field 620 that parallels the 720 field, for Subject Added Entry-Uncontrolled Name. This proposal arose from a request from the OCLC CORC Project to allow for interoperability between MARC and other metadata element sets, particularly Dublin Core.

Initial discussion centered around concerns about indicators for the type of name. Sherman Clarke (VRA) expressed concern about the lack of other types of name in this proposal other than the three listed (Not specified, Personal name, Other name). Rich Greene (OCLC) agreed that examples of other possible indicator values may be needed (corporate, conference, geographic).

Karen Coyle (California Digital Library) asked whether there was any need for this other than for mapping to Dublin Core, and just what was meant by "uncontrolled" if values were added to the indicator. Rich Greene responded that there are "no rules" for uncontrolled items. Discussion followed concerning the controlled nature of MARC and the uncontrolled nature of Dublin Core. Diane Hillmann (LITA) summarized with the following observations:

Dublin Core has no accepted way to indicating the nature of a name

CORC is a "MARC-ized" version of Dublin Core with some distinctions that don't appear elsewhere

It is unreasonable to expect a "round trip" mapping between Dublin Core and MARC

Rebecca Guenther reported that the Dublin Core group is planning on coming to agreement on qualifiers by mid-February 2000 and that may inform the discussion.

Karen Coyle stated that the lack of a 1XX/6XX/7XX distinction in Dublin Core is particularly problematic. Rebecca Guenther responded that main entry is not relevant in Dublin Core, and that the 1XX fields are not repeatable.

The Chair recommended that there be a motion to approve this proposal, and that the motion then be tabled. Jo Crawford moved to approve the proposal and Carol Penka seconded. Diane Hillmann moved to table the proposal. The motion to table was approved 7-1 with the chair not voting.

Report of the CC:DA Metadata Task Force

Mary Larsgaard reported. The Task Force is locating prototypes for simultaneously searching multiple databases. There may be a need to make changes to the MARC format to accommodate metadata data elements once the Dublin Core qualifiers are approved; voting is expected in February. The TF's final report is due June 1, 2000 and the first draft will be sent to the metamarda mailing list. The 1999 Summary Report will be the basis for the final report. Suggestions for improvement should be sent directly to Mary Larsgaard.

Report of the East Asian Character Set Task Force

John Espley reported. The Task Force will meet at 12 noon on Monday, January 17, 2000 in the VTLS Suite. A final proposal should be ready by the ALA Annual Meeting. The RLG ftp server is hosting the mappings files (ftp.rlg.org/pub/eacc) for East Asian Character Code (EACC) and Unicode. This may be linked to from the Task Force web page on the MARBI website. CEAL has expressed interest in being involved in reviewing the TF's work.

Gary Smith reported. The Task Force will be delivering a report at the ALA Annual Meeting. Documents will be up by the end of the month on the TF's webpage on the MARBI website. Any information for the Chair should be sent within the week.

Report of the Multilingual Records Task Force

Jo Crawford reported. The Task Force met for the first time at this ALA Midwinter Meeting. An interim report will be due by Annual Meeting 2000 with a final report at Midwinter Meeting 2001. Updates will be posted to the web page as needed.

MARBI Business meeting

Joint Meeting with CC:DA at ALA Annual

CC:DA is interested in meeting again with MARBI at ALA Annual. Topics would include rule revisions on seriality and a report of the Metadata Task Force amongst other issues. The consensus of the Committee was to meet with CC:DA during MARBI's traditional Monday afternoon meeting time.

Metadata Preconference: Providing Access to Web Resources

Mary Larsgaard reported that the schedule and faculty for the Preconference are now final. Proceedings will be published as part of the ALCTS Paper Series, probably by the end of summer 2000. The price for the Preconference will be $275. Topics will range from AACR2 to Cliff Lynch speaking about the future.

RUSA/MOUSS Catalog Use Committee program: Is MARC Dead?

Phelix Hanible (RUSA/MOUSS) presented a revised version of the RUSA program Is MARCDead? Panelists will include Jerry Campbell, Karen Coyle, Martin Dillon, and Joseph Mathews. Each panelist will have fifteen minutes to present on the topic, with a question and answer session following the presentations. Speakers will address the following points from different perspectives:

Define "bibliographic" in light of today's library environment

Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of MARC, how these have played out heretofore, how they will work in the future when MARC, like the book, is being challenged. Discuss the implications for users of libraries and librarians as user of the catalog.

Address MARC as a data format and other data formats for which standards are being defined or which may be proprietary that may challenge the MARC format.

Fred Gitner (PLA) requested MARBI co-sponsorship of this program to take place at ALA Annual in Chicago. Speakers will include Stan Skrzeszewski (incoming president of CLA), Maureen Cubberley (ASM Consulting in Canada), and Gary Strong (Queens Borough PL). PLA is not requesting a financial commitment from MARBI (i.e., the sponsorship is in name only). Diane Hillman moved approval of co-sponsorship, Jo Crawford seconded. The motion passed 6-0 with
the chair not voting. The Chair will pursue approval of co-sponsorship from MARBI's 3 parent divisions.

Meeting Times at ALA Annual Meeting 2000 in Chicago

Meeting times at ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago will parallel those at Midwinter in San Antonio: